9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rintout of the mobile owned by the appellant was corroborative evidence to show that appellant was not only having relation with Abdulla but was having frequent conversation with him. It was also that no books of accounts of gold business were found during the search thus the statement of the appellant about his gold business remained without substance. Finding overall evidence on the record, the Special Director (Appeals), while maintaining the finding on contravention of section 3(c) of FEMA, the amount of penalty was reduced from Rs. 7,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/-. After going through the record, we find, evidence to prove contravention of Section 3(c) of FEMA. The appellant could not prove his gold business and reason to call Abdulla of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 3. The counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no evidence available with the respondents to prove receipt of Rs. 7,46,69,500/- at the instance of person residing out of India. The respondents have relied on the statement of the appellant and others recorded under duress thus retracted immediately. Despites catena's of the judgment of Apex Court that retracted statements should not be relied, it has been relied by the respondents. 4. The burden was on the department to prove that appellant has contravened Section 3(c) of FEMA but they failed to produce any evidence to prove case against the appellant other than to rely on the retracted statements. Law being settled that retracted stateme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector (Appeals). 8. Elaborate arguments on the issue has been made with a prayer to dismiss the appeal because impugned order is not merely in reference to the statement of appellants and others rather based on the material to corroborate the statements. The retraction of the statement was not made immediately and it is not that once there is retraction of statement, it cannot be relied. The prayer was accordingly made to dismiss the appeal. 9. We have considered the rival submission made by both the parties and scanned the matter carefully. The allegations against the appellant are for contravention of Section 3(c) of FEMA. Originally Adjudicating Authority imposed the penalty of Rs. 7,00,000/- which has been reduced to Rs. 5,00,000/- by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent but his mobile no. 9844017846 proved that he was frequently calling Abdulla. 12. The statement of one Naveen was also recorded on 02.02.2001 to confirm that the appellant was involved in gold business and was receiving payment under the instruction of person residing outside the country. The Special Director (Appeals) has taken note of the retraction of the statement but finding computerized accounts and printout of the mobile of the appellant which revealed frequent conversation with Abdulla, the order was passed. Certain papers were seized which revealed payment to Arjun Singh, Srinivas, Subhaskar Reddy and to M.K. and M.A.. Thus, apart from the statements, the respondents could rely on the document to support their case. Thus, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
